[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lilo about to be dropped?

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 18:46 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@planet.nl):
> > I'm not sure where the original mail comes from, but IMO this should be 
> From lilo package BTS which I was tracking for l10n purposes. So I
> just happened to notice William's answer to a bug report and thought
> it would be good for this to be discussed in public.
> Clearly, I didn't choose the right place to discuss and the topic has
> wider implications than just D-I, as the followups show. Good thing
> that you made the discussion wider.
> > > Don't we have some install paths that still depend on LILO?
> > 
> > Yes: /boot on LVM is the main one.
> > 
> > > Anyway, even if we don't, I think we should track that lilo removal
> > > and coordinate with William, in order to stop providing
> > > lilo-installer.
> > >
> > > And, I think this should be mentioned as a release goal (dropping
> > > lilo). Either high priority if we have install paths depending on
> > > lilo, or normal priority otherwise.
> > 
> > D-I release goal or Debian release goal [1]?
> Clearly Debian release "goal".
> > IMO the latter could well be justified as there will also need to be some 
> > kind of upgrade strategy for existing users that does not make 
> > uncontrolled changes on their hard disk or loses them the ability to boot 
> > alternative OSes on dual (or multi) boot systems.
> Which might be very tricky....
> But, as William mentioned in his original mail, upstream activity
> seems to be low so we need to figure out if we want to keep yet
> another unmaintained software in Debian. What later puzzled me if the
> mention in non collaboratve upstream *if we don't drop Debian
> patches*.
> That's not exactly inactive upstream so it would be good to clarify
> the situation of lilo upstream.

Lilo upstream is dead (no release in quite a while), but the lilo
maintainer has also been seen as saying in various mailing lists etc,
that since Debian patches lilo that he has no interest in helping to fix
problems in our version.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: